You’ve most likely heard the gap illustration of salvation. Just to refresh your memory, it goes like this.

God created man to live in relationship with him. We stood with him, walked with him. Then Adam and Eve sinned and caused a great void to open up between man and God. There was no way we could cross that void. It was a deep canyon with God on one side and man on the other.

Jesus gave the solution by crossing the canyon, something we could not do. He came among us and lived and died on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins. The cross then became the bridge between God and man, giving us the means to cross the canyon and reach God. Through the cross we can find God and salvation.

Let me suggest an alternate picture.

God created man to live in relationship with him. We stood with him, walked with him. Then Adam and Eve sinned and all creation fell as though down a huge cliff. We stood at the bottom of that cliff with God at the top. Nothing we do would enable us to climb the cliff.

Jesus presented the solution by descending the cliff. He stepped down from high above and lived among fallen humanity. He died on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins. Through the cross he draws us to himself. Jesus then ascends back to God at the top of the cliff, taking us with him.

The difference in these two illustrations is enormous. In both of them God is the one who makes salvation possible. Man is helpless to make a way to God. But in the first God only makes salvation possible, not certain – and only in a world different from our own. In the first illustration Jesus creates a bridge we must walk across to be saved, but this ignores man’s inability to walk toward God. Dead in our sins, we neither have the desire nor the ability to approach God. We are enemies in rebellion against him. The first illustration is truly semi-Pelagian in imagining some ability remains in man so that he can walk to God. Perhaps some who present this illustration would include the Arminian notion of prevenient grace, the belief that God has enabled people to respond to him. This would take the illustration out of the realm of Pelagian heresy but it still leaves the person with an ability the Bible says we simply do not have.

The second illustration does a better job of presenting the biblical picture. It is not perfect, no illustration can contain everything, but it shows that man is not capable of any of the work to reach God.

God brings us to himself. He descends the cliff, does what is necessary to bring us into righteousness, then wraps his arms around us and carries us with him back into Heaven. This is what it means to be saved, to be found in the arms of Christ when he has returned to his heavenly home. “But wait!” you say “He was raised 2,000 years ago! I was not there, I could not have been risen with him!” Ahh but you were, dear saint. Thus we are told a few times in the New Testament, as at Ephesians 2:6, that God has raised us up with him and ​seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. In an event that is both very real and very mysterious, all the saints of God were raised with Jesus Christ. He carried us from the fallen world to the throne of his Father. This is the only way our salvation could take place.

Perhaps I should make some tracts.

Where is the world headed? What will be the high point of the history of the world? Estimates of the age of the universe vary, anywhere from 6,000 years to 15 billion years or so. Whatever the case, in that time God has done many, many amazing acts. Creation, protection, overthrowing mighty rulers, raising the dead, walking on water, healing the sick, talking donkeys, saving people from sin and death, etc etc. The history of the world is absolutely packed with the wonders of God’s glory and grace. What will be the high point?

I would say there isn’t really a high point, that it all just keeps growing greater and greater. At some point the history of creation will come to an end (sort of, not really – it will all be made new) but our experience will not end. I believe our enjoyment of God will only grow throughout eternity and thus the glory God receives from us will grow. There will be no high point, just newer and newer heights of delight and glory.

Having that in my mind I am a bit astonished at what Ryrie sees as the high point of history. It is possible he is drawing a line between temporal history and eternal history, drawing out the high point of creation history before the end of all things, but I don’t think he makes this distinction. Nonetheless, if the question is limited to temporal history, I would say the high point has already passed, that it took place at the cross. In all of human history, in the time before God finally closes his work on earth, the cross is the moment when God was most glorified.

So, in the span of eternity there is no high point, in the span of world history the cross was the high point.

Ryrie says the high point of history is found in the millennial kingdom. The significance of the millennium is it stands as the climax of all that has happened: “The entire program culminates, not in eternity but in history, in the millennial kingdom of the Lord Christ. This millennial culmination is the climax of history and the great goal of God’s program for the ages.” (108)

The presence of the comma before the second clause causes some confusion. Is Ryrie specifying that the high point of history, not including any consideration about eternity, is found in the millennial reign, or is he saying that the high point is found in history, not in eternity, and it is the millennial reign? I believe he is saying the latter. Earlier in the book Ryrie makes this statement: “Concerning the goal of history, dispensationalists find it in the establishment of the millennial kingdom on earth, whereas the covenant theologian regards it as the eternal state.” (21) There he makes a clear distinction between the dispensationalist view of temporal history and the covenant theology view of the eternal. He goes on to say that the dispensationalist does not minimize the importance of eternity but he never really says what he thinks God is doing in eternity. Perhaps that will come later.

It seems very strange to me to see all that God has done in history, all his mighty acts including the infinite value of the gift of the precious Son of God, finding their culmination, their goal, their end in a period that will only last 1000 years. This greatly undervalues the importance and majesty of God’s work. It may well be that I am missing something, I’m still new to the details of dispensationalism and still have a lot of reading to do, but I believe I have presented Ryrie accurately.

That ends the main part of my post, what follows is me following out loud a train of thought. Jump in if my reasoning is faulty somewhere.

Here is another question/observation. Dispensationalists distinguish God’s work with Israel from God’s work with the church. The rapture would separate the church so that most (not all, assuming some people are saved after the rapture) Christians are not (physically?) present during the millennial reign. The millennium fulfills God’s promises to Israel, bringing about the powerful, secure, mighty nation of Israel with God on the throne. So what does the cross have to do with the millennium? Does the death of Jesus Christ have a specific purpose for the millennial kingdom? If God’s purposes for the church and for Israel are distinct, and the church is made up of those who have become the children of God through the death of Christ, I’m not sure what role the cross would play in the millennial kingdom. That would make Ryrie’s claim all the more astounding since he would be saying the goal of history involves something that has nothing to do with the cross. Am I making any sense?

I do want to note that Ryrie is clear that dispensationalists believe there is only one way of salvation. There is not one way for Jews to be saved and another for Christians. All who are saved receive salvation only through Jesus Christ by faith, so even those Jews who experience salvation do so only because of Jesus.

Whatever the case, this whole notion strikes me as very odd and it reduces the significance of God’s work. The kingdom of God is eternal, not temporal, and entrance into the kingdom is through the cross. Those in the kingdom will be in it forever and will forever grow in their delight of God, giving him increasing measures of glory.

It has been over a month since I wrote my post Blogging the System of Scripture, starting off my examination of dispensationalism vs covenant theology. Three things have slowed me down. First, I’m busy. Second, I’m a slow reader. Third, I’m still not entirely sure of the best way to blog through my study. I will probably do more of what I am doing here: the occasional short (or not so short) post addressing things I’ve come across. To start things off I’ve been making my way through Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism and I have a few thoughts.

First on the book itself. On the whole I appreciate Ryrie’s tone. I believe he is trying to be fair when he discusses covenant theology. I’ve already come across too much writing on both sides that seems to distort and slander rather than disagree fairly and with respect.

That said, Ryrie does one thing I hoped he wouldn’t do. He is spending far too much time talking about covenant theology. I expect him to address places where he thinks covenant theology is wrong and dispensationalism is right, but so far the amount of material devoted to covenant theology has been excessive and somewhat repetitive. He could say what he does with fewer words, but I’d prefer it if he said less about why covenant theology is wrong and more about why dispensationalism is right.

He does talk mostly about dispensationalism, of course, so I have some things to discuss.

One item that has come up several times is that dispensationalism always interprets the Bible literally while covenant theology does not. Ryrie acknowledges that those in the covenant theology camp may have a generally literal approach to the Bible but he says there are times when they must spiritualize passages in order to remain covenant theologians. He says the dispensationalist “admits that the nondispensationalist is a literalist in much of his interpretation of the Scriptures but charges him with allegorizing or spiritualizing when it comes to the interpretation of prophecy.” (93) Later he adds “Classic dispensationalism is a result of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this.” (97)

By way of example he mentions the Old Testament prophecies which speak of the establishment, prosperity, and security of the nation of Israel. Covenant theologians “are saying that these promises have been inaugurated and begun to be fulfilled now in the church age and will be consummated in the new heavens and new earth (the already/not yet concept)” while dispensationalists believe the promises will be fulfilled during the millennial reign of Christ. (100)

He stresses that all of the Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted literally, by which he means at face value. But there are some passages that it seems would be difficult to interpret from a dispensationalist perspective. I will mention two. The first is Isaiah 53:10 and the second is Ezekiel 37:26-28.

The face value meaning of this passage is that the person spoken of in Isaiah 53 will have physical children.

How can this be taken at face value rather than recognizing that this is fulfilled in a spiritual sense? Would the dispensationalist argue on the side of Dan Brown that Jesus had children? Or, since the dispensationalist sees the fulfillment of many of these prophecies coming during the millennial kingdom, will Jesus have physical offspring during that time?

The passage must be understood as referring to spiritual offspring. Because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are able to be the children of God. This is not immediately obvious in the text, and probably was not how the Old Testament saints understood the passage, but it becomes clear in the New Testament. Ryrie argues in favor of progressive revelation but nonetheless frowns on the idea that New Testament passages reveal spiritual interpretations to Old Testament promises.

Ryrie says that dispensationalists believe the Old Testament promises regarding Israel will be fulfilled during the millenial kingdom (I will have another post soon dealing briefly with the dispensationalist view of the significance of the millennial kingdom). The dispensationalist, taking this passage at face value and placing its fulfillment in the millennial kingdom, is faced with an immediate problem. The millennial kingdom is millennial, it lasts 1000 years. Ezekiel tells us about a promise for the future of Israel that is eternal. There is no temporal limitation on the promise in this passage. This is not an oddity: many of the Old Testament promises regarding Israel are eternal in scope.

If we accept the dispensationalist view of a literal, face value reading of Scripture and we agree that these prophecies are positioned in the millennial kingdom then we have the odd condition of an eternal promise somehow fitting in a literal 1000 year period.

I think it is more fitting to avoid Ryrie’s distinction between a literal interpretation and a spiritual interpretation. The distinction is rather between different kinds of literal interpretation. The dispensationalist wants to interpret these passages in an isolated, face value fashion. I want to interpret them while including understanding from other parts of Scripture. Part of the dispensationalist error here is believing the Bible separates into different economies or dispensations and that the promises in one do not necessarily fit into another. There is a distinction made between physical Israel and the spiritual people of God so the promises of the New Testament do not help us when trying to understand the promises made specifically to Israel. I think this does a disservice to Scripture as an unfolding whole. As I mentioned before, Ryrie defends the notion of progressive revelation, but I don’t think he does it justice when one part of the Bible is in a sense cut off from another. He argues that dispensationalism does a better job of showing the unity of Scripture but theirs is a strange unity.

In that last paragraph I’m summarizing a number of other arguments made in the book. This post is already long enough so I won’t examine those arguments in detail. Perhaps that will come another time. Next in this series will be a brief look at the significance of the millennium.

I’m working with Ephesians 2:4-7 for Sunday’s sermon. In verse 4 Paul seems to describe the motivation of God in saving sinners to be his mercy and his love for us. In verse 7 it seems to be the desire of God to magnify his grace throughout eternity.

Perhaps sense is made of this by seeing the first as a motivation and the second as a purpose.

God is motivated to save sinners because he is merciful and loving. He loves those he has made and desires to save the lost. At the same time, the purpose behind God’s actions is to magnify his glory. 

Put another way, God saves us because he loves us in order that we might glorify him.

His purpose stands higher than his motivation. This is why not everyone goes to Heaven even though God loves everyone. To accomplish his purpose of being glorified all of his character must be displayed, his grace and his mercy. As such some will be saved and some will be damned. Judgment is just, delivered based on the sins of the unbeliever, while salvation is only by grace, delivered based on the good pleasure of God.

Thabiti Anyabwile (would someone please tell me how to pronounce his last name?) has written about the joy of election and the assurances we have as elect persons. It’s well worth a read.

it’s really helpful to underscore reasons why a particular truth should be cause for rejoicing. Truth is for our joy. And that’s true of every truth in Scripture, including God’s sovereign choosing of His people.

System is defined as “a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole…” Evangelical Christians agree in the Bible as a system, a series of parts that form a complex whole. Disagreement exists on what the parts are and how they fit together. The two main sides in this debate are Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. There is a new player rising in the discussion, New Covenant Theology, which proponents claim is a mediating position between DT and CT though much more on the CT side.

Over the last couple of years I’ve tried to wrap my brain around DT and CT, understanding what makes them distinct, what each one argues, which one is more biblical, and what is at stake in the debate. Ever since jumping on the Calvinist bandwagon I’ve become even more interested in the debate since most Calvinists identify themselves in the covenant camp. Most non-Calvinists tend to be either unaware of the issue or identify with dispensationalism by default. There are some Calvinist dispensationalists out there, but I’m not aware of any non-Calvinist covenant types. So what exactly is the debate? And what do the different sides argue? Is this a debate that really matters?

I hope to explore all of this in a new series called Blogging the System of Scripture. I have several books to wade through and plenty of websites to skim which will hopefully help me understand what is going on here. This series has been prompted in part by a discussion over at While We Sojourn.

In this initial post I will give a brief overview of the positions as I understand them. Keep in mind that my understanding on this is very rudimentary. I will also list the resources I will be using.

Dispensationalism

Proponents of this system of theology believe that human history can be divided into seven or so dispensations (or periods). God’s dealings with humans is a little different from one dispensation to another. Each dispensation is distinct precisely because God’s way of interacting with humans, or God’s expectation of humans, changes somehow. Salvation does not change from period to period, salvation remains a matter of having faith in God. One of the prominent views of dispensationalists is that Israel and the church remain distinct. God has plans for corporate Israel distinct from his plans for the church. The church does not replace Israel but adds something new to God’s dealings with mankind.

Covenant Theology

Proponents see Scripture as being structured around various guiding covenants. Three in particular can be seen: the covenant of works in which God required obedience of Adam and Eve in the garden; the covenant of redemption in which the members of the Trinity covenanted amongst themselves to bring redemption to humanity; and the covenant of grace through which we receive salvation by grace through faith. There are numerous biblical covenants but these three are seen as theological covenants that shape and guide redemptive history. As regards Israel, proponents argue that the church is true Israel, fulfilling what God was building through Abraham and replacing any physical nation of Israel.

New Covenant Theology

At the moment this is the hardest one for me to nail down. Having only recently heard the term, I’ll refrain from commenting on this approach until I’ve learned more about it.

Brief response

Initially my biggest fault with dispensational theology is its approach to Israel. It seems quite clear to me that Paul in Romans 4:11-12, Romans 9:6-8, Romans 11:24, Galatians 3:29, Philippians 3:3, etc, wants Christians to see that true Israel has always been those who have faith in God. We should not understand Israel the people of God as referring to the corporate nation of Israel. Israel the people of God refers to all who have faith in God and includes Christians today. As I move through this series perhaps I’ll better understand the dispensational position on Israel.

As for the covenant folks, I’m having a hard time with the three theological covenants. The covenant of works does not look like a covenant to me, it looks like a command. The covenant of redemption looks like a unified purpose in the Trinity, not like a covenant. The covenant of grace is the only one of the three that does look like a covenant. Thus most of the CT framework looks somewhat contrived. Again, as I study this more the reasoning of CT proponents might become clear.

Resources

• Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology - brief info, not a bad intro to CT. I have not found much on dispensationalism, I wish he had more info on this position.
• John H. Gerstner, A Primer on Dispensationalism - a very uncharitable and, I think, inaccurate critique of dispensationalism by a covenant theologian. I can’t recommend this book. I was very disappointed by it.
• Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths - written by a dispensationalist, this looks like it will be a good, though short, resource.
• O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants - this is supposed to be one of the better resources for understanding covenant theology. It looks like a well-written, thorough presentation of covenant theology.
• Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism - one of the classic texts on dispensationalism, this edition was published in 2007. Not sure how much it has changed since Ryrie’s original 30 years ago.
• Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists - I hope this is what Primer above should have been. It is a critique of dispensationalism by a covenant theologian. It hasn’t arrived yet but comments on the book make me hopeful that it will be a fair, even-handed treatment of dispensationalism by an opponent.
• Renald Showers, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology - a dispensational theologian compares DT and CT and tries to explain why dispensationalism is more faithful to Scripture.
• Tom Wells, New Covenant Theology - the only one on new covenant theology, I hope I’ve picked well. I really want to understand this position. 
• Various blogs and websites.

I will not give each of these a thorough read. I will probably read Robertson’s book on CT, Ryrie’s book on DT, and Wells’ book on NCT. The others will be references. I’m not sure what my blog posts will look like nor am I sure how often I will be able to post. This particular study will be interesting but challenging, and work and family responsibilities do present some constraints.

If you know of some other good resources on the topic please mention them in the comments.

Continuing to go through Read the Institutes in a Year, today’s reading was interesting as it relates to both the argument over imputed righteousness and the question of what Christ did at the cross.

Emergents seem to increasingly favor the idea that what Jesus did in his life and at the cross was little more than set an example for us to follow. He was living righteously simply to show us how to live righteously. His death did little more than show us just how much he meant what he had said. It all sets an example for us, it doesn’t actually cause anything to happen in us.

Here is what Calvin says in 2.1.6:

We must surely hold that Adam was not only the progenitor but, as it were, the root of human nature; and that therefore in his corruption mankind deserved to be vitiated. This the apostle makes clear from a comparison of Adam with Christ. “As through one man sin came into the world and through sin death, which spread among all men when all sinned” [Rom. 5:12], thus through Christ’s grace righteousness and life are restored to us [Rom. 5:17]. What nonsense will the Pelagians chatter here? That Adam’s sin was propagated by imitation? Then does Christ’s righteousness benefit us only as an example set before us to imitate? Who can bear such sacrilege!

To answer your question, Calvin, many people in the church today can bear it.

One of my very favorite songs, unfortunately I have trouble finding anyone singing it. But that doesn’t stop me from singing it to myself! And now, dear reader, I sing it to you.

I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew
He moved my soul to seek Him, seeking me.
It was not I that found O Savior true;
No, I was found of Thee.

I find, I walk, I love, but oh, the whole
Of love is but my answer, Lord, to Thee!
For Thou wert long beforehand with my soul
Always Thou lovest me.

Thou didst reach forth Thy hand and mine enfold;
I walked and sank not on the storm vexed sea
‘Twas not so much that I on Thee took hold,
As Thou, dear Lord, on me.

I find, I walk, I love, but oh, the whole
Of love is but my answer, Lord, to Thee!
For Thou wert long beforehand with my soul
Always Thou lovest me.

You can find the music and a demo track here.

I’ve just recently started preaching through Ephesians at my church and Sunday I’ll be tackling Ephesians 1:4-6. Due to the differing opinions over the interpretation of these verses, Sunday could be an interesting day. There will be more such days by the time we are through with Ephesians, though most of the landmines are past by the end of chapter two.

Below are my notes about the text itself. These are not sermon notes, just some thoughts about the verses. The sermon audio should be online sometime Monday. Please pray for all to go well with the service.

Ephesians 1:4-6

4 just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before him in love, 5 having predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ into him, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace with which he blessed us in the beloved.

v4
he [the Father] chose us in him [Christ]. The Father did the choosing and gave us over to Christ. Paul matches exactly what John records Jesus saying in John 6:44 (no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.), John 6:37 (all that the Father gives me will come to me…), John 6:65 (no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father) and John 17:24 (they also, whom you have given me…) etc. The possible challenge is John 15:16 (You did not choose me, but I chose you). Jesus said he did the choosing. Two possible responses: 1, Jesus is speaking in the sense of the triune God. I, God, chose you. Or 2, Jesus is speaking to his disciples and the application might be limited to them so he is saying he chose these disciples whereas in salvation the Father chooses who will be saved. Either way the point is clear that individuals do not do the choosing.

He chose us before the foundation of the world. Various expressions like this seem to reinforce the point that our being chosen has nothing to do with us. God loved us before we ever could have done anything to merit his love. He chose us before we could have shown any reason to be chosen. The foreknowledge view seeks to get around this but in doing so it defeats the purpose of the text. What else would words like this mean if not that God chose us without anything in us being a consideration?

He chose us to be holy and blameless in love. This speaks highly of the need for a holy life. Verse 5 shows that adoption is one of the goals of our having been chosen but Paul first tells us that we were chosen to be holy and blameless. In Exodus 19:6 God told the Israelites that they were to be a holy nation. In 1 Peter 2:9 this gets applied to the church. 1 Peter 2:9 further shows that this way of being is so that we would glorify God – proclaiming his excellencies – a point also drawn out in Ephesians 1:6. Recognizing that God chose us for salvation and holds our salvation secure is not a license to sin. Those who are his are his and will fight sin. Sanctification is, as Charles Hodge puts it, “the only evidence of election.”

We are to be holy and blameless in love, reminding us that holiness does not mean being a Pharisee. We are to be loving people, showing the love of the Lord as we live a holy life for the glory of God.

v5

God predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ. First he chooses the people then he predestines them. Choosing them singles them out. Predestining them for some action assures the action will take place. They are predestined for adoption, so all who are chosen will be adopted into God. Specifically, they are adopted into the Father through Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus says in John 14:6: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” There are several reasons why we can only access the Father through Christ. One reason is that the Father has chosen to extend adoption only through Jesus. Even if a person could live a perfectly holy life, always free from all sin, they would still need Jesus in order to be adopted into the Father. Only in Christ can we address God as Father.

God’s choice to predestine certain individuals is based on the purpose of his will. This reinforces what we saw in v4, that his choosing is not based on something within humans. Someone advocating the foreknowledge view might say, “Yes, according to the purpose of his will, and the purpose of his will is to choose all those he sees choosing him.” But that is not supported by the text and, again, would weaken the force of the text. Salvation is in God and from God and given to those God has chosen. According to the purpose of his will means given to those determined by God, not to those who have determined God for themselves. Boice says, “One problem is that an election like that [foreknowledge] is not really election. In such a reconstruction God does not preordain an individual to anything; the individual actually ordains himself.”

v6

This verse reveals the third and highest purpose of God’s choosing: to the praise of his glorious grace. Why are we chosen for holiness and blamelessness? Why are we adopted? So that we might praise God and he be glorified. The particular attribute of his character that is uplifted is his glorious grace. God’s actions draw attention to different aspects of God’s character and nature. In Romans 9 we learn that those not saved by God are used by God to glorify his holiness and justice. Here we learn that those saved by God are used to glorify his grace and mercy. Salvation is not simply a matter of making my life better and keeping me from Hell. Salvation is a matter of glorifying the grace of God. Yes, God loves us. Yes, he desires that which is good for us. But we are not the center of God’s affections. We were created for God’s glory and told to worship and serve him and no other. We are to be God-centered. Likewise God is God-centered and not man-centered. We lift him up, he lifts up himself.

Finally, Paul says that this grace is given to us in the Beloved. This is certainly a reference to Jesus, he is the beloved through whom comes the gift of saving grace. Time and again in these three verses Paul stresses salvation as a gift entirely of God’s work and grace. This is not a response to those who would challenge his monergistic soteriology but is rather a reminder to the believer of how good and gracious God is and how great our debt is to him. These verses are praise and though they are deeply theological, Paul assumes his readers will be on the same page as him. Monergism is assumed, not argued for. And God is praised for giving us such great grace through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Like many, I’ve been digging through material from the John 3:16 conference as well as reading Lemke’s article and the various responses in the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry. In each of these one thing has continually surprised and perplexed me: the notion that Calvinists believe eternal security is dependent on human works. 

In brief, what is eternal security, or perseverance of the saints? It is the belief that those who truly belong to Christ will not fall away from the faith. One cannot be a Christian one day and no longer a Christian the next. The Scriptural basis for this belief comes from several places. In Philippians 1:6 Paul expresses confidence that God will complete the work begun in believers; Romans 8:29-30 presents several aspects of the Christian life as a definite, continuous chain: those foreknown are predestined then called then justified then glorified; John 6:39 tells us that the will of the Father is that the Son would lose none of those given to him. Security of the believer is a definite notion in Scripture.

Up to this point there is no real disagreement among those who believe in eternal security. The argument seems to be with the idea that those who are secure will persevere in the faith – continue living faithful lives in faith to God. Somehow we are accused of believing in salvation by works. Here is a broader look at eternal security as I – and many other Calvinists and, perhaps, some non-Calvinists – understand it.

Being born again, regenerated, has to mean something. When a person is born again an actual change has taken place in that person’s life. God has done something to that person so that he is no longer dead in his sins but is made alive with Christ. He is no longer a slave to sin. He will sin but he will not “go on sinning” – his life will no longer be a life characterized by sinfulness. Biblical support for this can be found throughout but nowhere is it clearer than in 1 John.

James and Paul also tell us that those who are born again will have the things of God coming from their lives. There will be fruits of the Spirit. Saving faith will produce good works. The Christian life is not just one that avoids doing bad things, it also does good things. A born again person resists sin and is active in obedience to Christ. Not perfectly so, this is why we must be sanctified. Becoming more like Christ is an ongoing process that is never complete this side of Heaven.

If a person is active in his rebellion against God while claiming to be a Christian, where is the evidence for his claim? If his life is characterized by his sin, where is he meeting the expectation of 1 John?

If a person is saved it will be evident in his life and he will persevere in obedience. If he does not persevere, he will not experience the “salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:5). This does not mean he has lost his salvation, this means he was never saved. He had no true change. He was not born again.

A person does not remain born again on the basis of their works, but their works demonstrate that they have been born again. Many can claim to be saved and might live moral lives for a time. If they turn from that claim or turn away from obedience they show their claim was false.

What is the basis of a person’s ability to persevere? A transformed heart and life, filled with strength by the Spirit of God. This is all God’s work. No one can persevere, no one can obey, unless God is at work through him. Without God a man’s every act is sin. Only with God can a person do anything good. Any resisting of sin, any obedience, comes from the grace of God. Any perseverance comes only as a gift of God’s grace.

How can someone claim Calvinists really believe persevering salvation is by human works when Calvinists believe even good works come only by the grace and power of God? If I persevere in obedience and faith it is only because God has transformed me, has regenerated me, has made me be born again (1 Peter 1:3: According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again…).

Thanks be to God who has accomplished everything needed for our salvation.